Latest Generic Polls: Ras +12%R; WSJ 6%R; Gallup 15%R; CNN 10R; Fox13R; Bloom 3R

[Eraserhead]

I am the only one who doesn't put a lot of stock in the generic ballot question? I prefer to look at the individual races and try to determine what's happening from there.

[??????????]

Gop wins 100 seats in the house.

[Umengus]

Rasmussen: "the data projects that 35% of voters this year will be Republicans, while 33% will be Democrats. In the previous midterm election of 2006, the Democrats had a two-percentage point advantage. Unaffiliated voters strongly favored Democrats in 2006 and strongly favor Republicans this year. "

[mypalfish]

Zogby (I know) has the GOP now +9, which is a 9 pt swing since his last poll.

[Vepres]

According the RCP, the Democrats were starting to gain in the second half of September, however, it seems Republicans regained the momentum. RCP currently has it at R +6.8, practically tied for the highest Republican margin this cycle.

[Dgov]

According the RCP, the Democrats were starting to gain in the second half of September, however, it seems Republicans regained the momentum. RCP currently has it at R +6.8, practically tied for the highest Republican margin this cycle.

Well, the Gallup polls certainly helped that out a lot.

[Sam Spade]

Rasmussen out today showing the GOP +8 in the generic ballot (47-39), which is a 5 pt gain since last week.

Today's will say... 48-39.

[Sam Spade]

New Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143777/GOP-Holds-Solid-Leads-Voter-Preferences-Week.aspx

RV
GOP 48-43 (was GOP 47-44)

LV (1)
GOP 53-42 (was GOP 53-41)

LV (2)
GOP 56-39 (was GOP 56-39)

[The Vorlon]

New Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143777/GOP-Holds-Solid-Leads-Voter-Preferences-Week.aspx

RV
GOP 48-43 (was GOP 47-44)

LV (1)
GOP 53-42 (was GOP 53-41)

LV (2)
GOP 56-39 (was GOP 56-39)

Gallup has shown pretty much the same result three weeks in a row now.

The Gallup turnout model/likely voter screen starts to stabilize more or less now, so I don't expect any huge swings from Gallup any more. (Next week's result? - Dem +13 or something....)

GOP moved two at the registered level, dems picked up 1 in the LV models....

[Torie]

Ras has the GOP up by 9%.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am the only one who doesn't put a lot of stock in the generic ballot question? I prefer to look at the individual races and try to determine what's happening from there.

The theory is that if there is electoral movement than that electoral movement will be at least partly uniform. Some places will swing more and some won't budge, but a general pattern will exist. Though the power of incumbency and the tendency to run dead (even in winnable districts!) makes it less useful in the U.S than most countries with single member districts.

[Torie]

Here is an interesting discussion of the gap between Gallup, and in particular its low turnout model, and the average of the pack. Could it be that most polls are overestimating turnout, and thus underestimating the percentage of the voters who will be Pubbies?

[Tender Branson]

Gallup can hardly be correct as shown in my thread there:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125997.msg2685829#msg2685829

If the Republicans sweep the Senate elections with ridiculously huge margins (see second chart), then it is GOP+12, but I don´t see GOP+17 ...

Based on current polls it`s about R+6 ...

[Torie]

Gallup can hardly be correct as shown in my thread there:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125997.msg2685829#msg2685829

If the Republicans sweep the Senate elections with ridiculously huge margins (see second chart), then it is GOP+12, but I don´t see GOP+17 ...

Based on current polls it`s about R+6 ...

You are just reverse engineering the poll numbers, which will not assist you in dealing with the matter of whether there will be disproportionate partisan turnout models, which get more disproportionate as the turnout declines. Using a 76% figure, translates into a 43.2% turnout (.76*.568.  Per my link, most polls seem to be assuming a higher turnout than that; well at least Gallup's low turnout number is 40%, and high turnout number is 55%, and 43% is a lot closer to 40%.  What turnout level other polls are assuming, I don't know. 

[Tender Branson]

Gallup can hardly be correct as shown in my thread there:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125997.msg2685829#msg2685829

If the Republicans sweep the Senate elections with ridiculously huge margins (see second chart), then it is GOP+12, but I don´t see GOP+17 ...

Based on current polls it`s about R+6 ...

You are just reverse engineering the poll numbers, which will not assist you in dealing with the matter of whether there will be disproportionate partisan turnout models, which get more disproportionate as the turnout declines. Using a 76% figure, translates into a 43.2% turnout (.76*.568.  Per my link, most polls seem to be assuming a higher turnout than that; well at least Gallup's low turnout number is 40%, and high turnout number is 55%, and 43% is a lot closer to 40%.  What turnout level other polls are assuming, I don't know.  

Nope, it´s not 43% turnout like you said. You cannot calculate it that way.

For example in 2006 the turnout was 80.6 Mio. out of 220.6 Mio. people aged 18+, according to your link.

My prediction of 76% is relative to absolute numbers, not relative to relative numbers - that´s the big difference.

My turnout model predicts 79.053 Mio. voters, which would be roughly 34% of the estimated 235 Mio. people aged 18 or older this year.

[Torie]

It should come out the same, if the turnout percentage numbers on my link are accurate, whether you use percentages of absolute numbers that are in the form of two numbers, one in the numerator, and one in the denominator, which fraction converts to a percentage. The percentages are derived from absolute numbers.

In any event, based on any paradigm of the past, the high turnout percentage of Gallup of 55% is well - just ludicrous. It probably will be below 45% - maybe well below, unless Obama succeeds in his mission to get his hardcore base out to vote, rather than remain too depressed to bestir themselves.

[Sam Spade]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303550904575562493014465942.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection

[Torie]

Well I agree that this election is all about Obama, his policies, and more importantly, particularly in zip codes like mine, confidence or lack thereof in his judgment. In the end, in this complex world, with relatively few real options as to which ideology has much relevance, it all comes down to judgment.

[Torie]

WSJ/NBC poll, GOP +7% (50-43).

[Sam Spade]

Pew says GOP +10 (+4 in RV, but that's becoming less relevant by the day)

http://people-press.org/report/666/

[Torie]

Pew says GOP +10 (+4 in RV, but that's becoming less relevant by the day)

http://people-press.org/report/666/

It seems rather difficult for me to see how the GOP could beat the Dems by 10%, but not win at least 60 seats. And that is the thing. Nobody knows what the real turnout model should be in all of these polls, particularly for the House.

[Sam Spade]

Pew says GOP +10 (+4 in RV, but that's becoming less relevant by the day)

http://people-press.org/report/666/

It seems rather difficult for me to see how the GOP could beat the Dems by 10%, but not win at least 60 seats. And that is the thing. Nobody knows what the real turnout model should be in all of these polls, particularly for the House.

I have enough trouble with turnout models for the Senate, much less the House.

[The Vorlon]

FWIW, I think pollsters are over estimating turnout.  I think the GOP is under-polling by about 3% across the board.

[mypalfish]

Pew says GOP +10 (+4 in RV, but that's becoming less relevant by the day)

http://people-press.org/report/666/

It seems rather difficult for me to see how the GOP could beat the Dems by 10%, but not win at least 60 seats. And that is the thing. Nobody knows what the real turnout model should be in all of these polls, particularly for the House.

If the GOP was really +10 in the generic ballot, they would not be struggling so badly in these Senate races.  They would win CA and WA and be up a heck of a lot more than 5 in KY, for example.  And McMahon would not be getting annihilated in CT, either.

[Torie]

FWIW, I think pollsters are over estimating turnout.  I think the GOP is under-polling by about 3% across the board.

That is my sense of it, after wading through the Gallup high and low turnout models, and their numbers, vis a vis history.